Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 232 of 1980, decided on 13th January, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 25‑3‑1980 in Criminal Appeal No. 480/78).
----Art. 185 (3) and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑[Murder‑case] Leave to appeal‑Question, whether solitary statement of a P. W. bearing visible signs of improvements sufficient to form basis of convic tion and whether by placing implicit reliance it courts kept in view principles recognised and applied by Supreme Court for ensuring safe administration of criminal justice‑Such question requiring fuller examination‑Leave to appeal granted‑Evidence].
Maqbool Ilahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 25‑3‑1980 whereby his conviction under section 302, P. P. C. and the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 was upheld.
2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 22‑9‑1975 the appellant saw the deceased Manzoor 1lahi talking to the wife of the petitioner's brother who was employed in the Army. He suspected of an intrigue between them. At degarwela the same day the petitioner fired at the deceased and caused death. A report about the occurrence was lodged by Sher Muhammad uncle who happened to be also the step‑father of the deceased. The report was recorded at Police Station Talagang.
3. Trial Court believed the two eye‑witnesses produced in the case, the motive as well as the matching of the‑empty recovered from the spot with the gun taken into possession from the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted under section 302, P. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine.
The learned Judge in the High Court while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner held that the presence of the other eye‑witness, Muhammad Aslam, was not free from doubt, the Fire‑arm Expert's opinion was of no avail to the prosecution yet maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner on the solitary statement of Sher Muhammad (P. W. 9).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. The version of the occurrence given in the F. I. R. was materially different from the statement made at the trial. There were visible signs of improvements made by Sher Muhammad (P.W. 9) with the sole object of making his statement consistent with the medical evidence. The motive was not proved and was not sufficient to account for the act attributed to the petitioner.
6. We consider that the questions whether the solitary statement of Sher Muhammad (P. W. 9) in such a situation and with these features could by itself form the sole basis of conviction and whether in placing implicit reliance on it the Courts have kept in view the principles recognized and applied by this Court for ensuring safe administration of criminal justice, require fuller examination. Leave is, therefore, granted.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer